GULAB Vs. JAGGAN RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. THE suit was for permanent injunction in respect of plot No. 279 area 3. 11 acres, which was a Pokhri, against the defendants. THE suit has been dismissed by the trial Court as well as by the lower appellate Court holding that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(2.) THE other question related to the rights of the parties over the Pokhri under the provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. However, as the finding of the Courts below was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case, they should not have dismissed it. THE suit should have been returned for presentation to proper Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent argued that the case of that Athmanathaswami (supra) was considered by the learned single Judge in the case of Devi Dutt Sharma (1979 All LJ 1086) (supra ). From the judgment it appears that the learned single Judge referred to that case in para 3 of the judgment but how that case was not applicable is not indicated in the judgment. Consequently I hold that the Courts below were not justified in dismissing the suit.